Report: #346558

Complaint Review: Arizona Department Of Economic Security - Division Of Child Support Enforcement - Phoenix Arizona

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Casa Grande Arizona
  • Arizona Department Of Economic Security - Division Of Child Support Enforcement www.azdes.gov/dcse Phoenix, Arizona U.S.A.

Arizona Department Of Economic Security - Division Of Child Support Enforcement The Division of Child Support Enforcement continues to enforce an amount contrary to a new court order that was made effective on 8/07. DCSE has also garnished both my state and federal income taxes when there is an overpayment of approximately $200 every month from 08/07 to 06/08. Phoenix Arizona

*General Comment: The Law Perverted- Govt by design not broken Govt

*Consumer Suggestion: ADES forgot to apply over 25,000.00 worth of payments

*General Comment: DCSE CORRUPTION

*Consumer Comment: You are not dealing with the State but Maximus Inc

*Consumer Comment: Similiar situation with DCSE

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
The Arizona Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) continues to enforce a wage assignment that is $200 more than a new modified court order amount which was effective 8/07 when the oldest child was emancipated. There wasn't a recalculation for the emancipated child with the old wage assignment, the state attorney just tacked on the same amount for both situations. I didn't even want to go back to court to deal with that one. So effective 12/07 the same amount was to continue because of a change in custody and I made more money.

In addition to the extra $200 I have been paying for over the past six months, DCSE has also garnished my state and federal income tax at the tune of about $1000 to pay for an arrears that doesn't exist.

I am in the process of trying to get an audit conducted on my account for the above mentioned reasons.

Any information or help you can offer me, would be greatly appreciated.

Casa Grande, Arizona

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/01/2008 09:10 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/arizona-department-of-economic-security-division-of-child-support-enforcement/phoenix-arizona-85222/arizona-department-of-economic-security-division-of-child-support-enforcement-the-divisi-346558. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#5 General Comment

The Law Perverted- Govt by design not broken Govt

AUTHOR: Mike - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Sunday, October 31, 2010

The Law Perverted!   Child Support and Politicians alike have taken the position of Marxist Principal in the Freeworld by dominating and exploiting the working class. Made to perform more labor than is necessary. Alienation-denotes the estrangement of people from their humanity. Child Support has nothing to do with justice, it is a panoply of plundered pops, and overwhelmingly now more than ever, Child Support is a regime whereby a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children. What is most striking is that this witch hunt of zealots has come entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures. The public never demanded that the government take action, nor has any public discussion of this alleged problem ever been held in the national or local media.


Needless to say the voices of pursued parents are seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. The bipartisan certainty of their guilt is sufficient to set aside their right to trial and declare them public enemies by general acclaim. Yet there is reason to believe that this problem is an optical illusion and that what is being portrayed as irresponsible fathers is in reality a massive abuse of government power. In recent years, a few cracks have appeared in the monolith. William Comanor writes that child-support obligations the only form of obligation or debt that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur- are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt.  Attorney Ron Henry characterizes the system as an obvious sham a disaster, and the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States.  The overwhelming majority of so-called deadbeat dads are judicially created, says another attorney. Why all this talk about so-called deadbeat dads? Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth.


When one begins to research the objective data and the research of independent scholars, it turns out that the problem is mostly the creation of government officials. In fact the myth of deadbeat dad has already been discredited conclusively by Sanford Braver and other scholars. We have already seen that few married or not married fathers seldom voluntarily abandon their children. Beyond this Braver has also shown that little scientific basis exists for claims that large numbers of fathers are not paying child support. Braver found that government claims of nonpayment were derived not from any compiled database or hard figures but entirely from surveys of mothers, and these alone, in setting enforcement policy against fathers, and no effort is made to balance them with surveys of non-custodial parents. Yet Braver found that fathers overwhelmingly do pay court-ordered child support when they are employed, often at enormous personal sacrifice.



A look at government machinery reveals that it was created not in response to claims of widespread nonpayment but before them, and that it was less a response to deadbeat dads than a mechanism to create them. Like new divorce laws (and shortly after their enactment), the child-support regulations and criminal enforcement machinery were created while few were paying attention.

Under pressure from bar associations and feminist groups, President Gerald Ford signed legislation creating the Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, warning at the time that it constituted unwarranted federal intrusion into families and the role of states. Contrary to professions of concern for the children, the principal purpose was never to provide for abandoned or impoverished children but to recoup welfare costs for the government. In fact, no study has ever been undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress, or any branch of government to explain the reason for the agencys existence.

Almost immediately the program began to expand exponentially, increasing tenfold from 1978 to 1998. The massive growth of law-enforcement machinery and reach was federally driven. In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to the Social Security Act required states to adopt child support guidelines. The legislation was promoted by the OCSE itself and by private collection companiesagain less to help children than to save the government money under the theory that it would help get single-mother families off of welfare by making fathers pay more.  Because most unpaid child support is due to unemployment, and because most non-custodial parents of AFDC [welfare] children do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already receiving in AFDC benefits, according to researchers Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, higher child-support guidelines could not help these children.

Then, with no explanation or justification (or constitutional authority), guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to address the minority of children in poverty were extended, under pressure from OCSE and other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988. This vastly enlarged the program and transformed a welfare provision into an entitlement. Today welfare cases, consisting mostly of unmarried parents account for only 17 percent of all child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83 percent of non-welfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are usually divorced involuntarily and who generally can be counted on to pay.  With wage withholding, the number of dollars passing through the government collection system exploded, mostly from non-welfare cases for which the system was never designed, which currently accounts for 92 percent of the money collected.

The 1988 law also made the guidelines presumptive and, for all practical purposes, compulsory. By one estimate the new guidelines more than doubled the size of awards. Yet that point was already known among policy makers and scholars that, with the exception of the relatively small number of poor and unemployed fathers, no serious problem on nonpayment existed. Not only was Braver presenting the results of his research, but a federal pilot study commissioned four years earlier by OCSE itself was published with similar findings. Originally the full-scale government-sponsored study was planned to follow up the pilot, but that was quashed by the OCSE when the pilots findings threatened the justification for the agencies existence by demonstrating that non-payment of child support was not a serious problem. The Congressional Research Service also concluded at about the same time that no serious problem existed.

Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal child-support enforcement has incurred a continuously increasing deficit. The overall financial impact of the child-support program on taxpayers is negative, the House Ways and Means Committee reports. Taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in 2002.

This money does not vanish. It ends up in the pockets and coffers of state officials, for whom it constitutes a lucrative source of revenue and income. Most states make a profit on their child-support program, according to Ways and Means, which notes that States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fit. In other words, federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize state government operations through child-support. This also transforms family courts from impartial tribunals into revenue-generating engines for the state government.

In addition to penalties and interest, states profit through federal incentive payments based on the amount collected, as well as receiving 66 percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs.  (When two states collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of almost $3.5 billion in 2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect $640 million. There is a $200 million per year motive driving this system in Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out. It dances at the strings of federal money.

To collect these funds states must channel payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, further criminalizing involuntarily divorced parents and allowing the government to claim its perennial crackdowns are increasing collections despite the program operating at an increasing loss. In January 2000, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala announced that the federal and state child-support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected in 1992. Yet these figures are not what they appear.

In simple accounting terms, the General Accounting Office, which appears at face value all the official HHS assumptions and data for what is legally owed but unpaid, found that as a percentage of what it claims is owed, collections actually decreased during this period. In fiscal year 1996, collections represented 21 percent of the total amount due but dropped to 17 percent of the total amount due in fiscal year 2000, writes GAO? As a result the amount owed at the end of the period is greater than the amount owed at the beginning of the period.


These facts are gathered from a book published by Cumberland House Publishing Inc. The Title is Taken Into Custody- The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. By Stephen Baskerville  For the sole purpose to stir up concern for rights of people. Something needs to be done.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Consumer Suggestion

ADES forgot to apply over 25,000.00 worth of payments

AUTHOR: Bdh123 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, October 05, 2010
sadly, it took filing bankruptcy to prove I didn't owe anything. After filing chapter 7, my credit report was investigated, along with all of my debts included in my bankruptcy. A few months after filing, I received an amended arrears report showing that the $54,000.00+ in arrears that I was accused of owing (even after filing numerous requests to reconsider, and appeals, and motions, and administrative reviews trying to prove that I didn't owe a dime) was corrected.

Their excuse? They simply forgot to include the data stored in their old legacy database on my arrears report. So, basically, I was incarcerated twice and forced to borrow over 10,000.00 from friends and family, and also lost my job because ADES "forgot" to include their old database in their payment report.

It's still a joke too. Even now, after their huge mistake, they claim I owe interest on the arrears....arrears that was never there to begin with.

I don't understand how they can get away with such blatant mistakes. Mistakes that alter a person's life forever.

It's amazing...if I worked at a bank and forgot to include someones paycheck in their total deposit, I'd be fired. ADES can forget to apply over 25 thousand dollars worth of payments and walk away without even as much as an apology to the unfortunate victim of their absolute dumbness.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 General Comment


AUTHOR: Leigh - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, January 21, 2010
I have almost identical situation even down to the "my file is in the desk of someone(liz faller) at the AG office. The CS guidelines never even followed my constitutional rights trashed and no one will listen or help, because i have no money. were you able to find any assistance in your matter?
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

You are not dealing with the State but Maximus Inc

AUTHOR: Dr. anthony - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Thursday, October 01, 2009

Maximus Inc. a Government Contractor is making sure that all children will be left behind. Maximus Inc. is responsible for child support, child welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, student loans, probation division, etc.  The problem here is that the massive fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and other criminal activities by Maximus Inc. leave these children with nothing. Just because they are poor, does that mean that a Criminal Organization like Maximus Inc can exploit them? The poorest of the poor being exploited by Maximus Inc. We have fraud here that the likes of it will never happen again, and Maximus Inc. makes Alfonso Capone look like a choirboy.


The Criminal activities by Maximus Inc. are, and the Maximus Inc.CEO knew about all of this and did nothing:

  • Maximus Inc. acted abusively toward human-services clients families with mentally disabled relatives in State institutions were contacted by Maximus Inc., and given as few as 10 days to hand over complicated financial data, with the threat that loved ones would be kicked out. Also being rude, and abusive to persons on child welfare, child support, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The way that Maximus Inc. treats persons is unbelievable to say the least.
  • Maximus Inc. hiring persons without background checks for caseworkers. One caseworker was a convicted forger, with an arrest record that included kidnapping, battery, and impersonating a police officer. Maximus Inc hired him while he was on parole. He blackmailed child welfare clients into giving him monies or he would cut off their benefits.
  • Maximus Inc. hired one caseworker that pushed his clients to help him sell drugs, and another who told women they'd lose their benefits unless they had sex with him, and her children were present at the time. Maximus Inc. hired sexual predators as caseworkers who pressured their clients for sex.
  • Maximus Inc. employees were extorting monies under blackmail from women on child welfare/child support, and these employees were sexually abusing these women.  In addition, they wanted these women to prostitute themselves on the streets. They were also getting these women pregnant after they were blackmailed into having sex. Where do these women get justice, and their honor and dignity back?  Just because they are poor, does that mean that a Criminal Organization like Maximus Inc can exploit them?
  • Maximus Inc. massive theft of monies from child welfare, child support, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, etc. Wire fraud, bank fraud, theft of States monies etc.
  • Maximus Inc. does IRS Intercepts on persons who do not owe any monies, and they keep these monies.
  • Local, State, National, and International Officials taking bribes, payoff, and kickbacks from Maximus Inc. to get contracts.
  • Maximus Inc using massive child welfare monies for parties, golf, cruises, and anything else you can believe. Unbelievable that the children are suffering while Maximus Inc officials party and play on the monies for children.
  • Maximus Inc. creating child support cases against men just to jack up their numbers, and these men never knew the women involved. Extortion by Maximus Inc. Also putting liens on persons who never owed child support.
  • The best one yet was a very old man dying in a hospice, and Maximus Inc. putting liens on everything that he owned for child support. Extortion by Maximus Inc.
  • Maximus Inc. encourages the hiring of family and friends, calling it an effective way to lure and keep talent. Cronyism.
  • Maximus Inc. bleeds Welfare Programs dry for every cent that they can.
  • Maximus Inc theft of clients monies and diverting the monies to other bank accounts so that clients do not get any monies.  How do these women pay their rents, and other bills? Children go without food and other necessary things in life. Blatant fraud.
  • Maximus Inc. has so many formal gender or racial discrimination lawsuits filed against it to be unbelievable. Maximus Inc has corporate malpractice, including inadequate and poor provision of services; misappropriation of funds, cronyism, and other financial irregularities; and discriminatory practices at company offices.
  • Maximus Inc. caseworkers lie on a daily basis.  They say that persons are deadbeat fathers when in fact that these persons are paying faithfully because they are under a court order.  The child support monies come out of the persons check however, the monies just disappear.
  • There are thousands of complaints from people dependent on Maximus Inc. services, and the State Agencies do not do anything because they do not want to hear it.
  • Child care for working welfare recipients were not paid, and bills submitted by childcare providers were over 30 days late in being paid. Daycare centers were confronted with decisions about turning away children, and parents trying to contact Maximus Inc. encountered telephone-system collapse.
  • Maximus Inc. used welfare funds intended for the poor to pay consultants who gave campaign contribution advice and solicited new business for the firm.
  • Maximus Inc. spends child welfare funds seeking contracts in other states, and for millions of dollars in advertising itself as the Great One this is corruption, and massive fraud to the poor.
  • Maximus Inc steals welfare funds, and they overlook the victims of this crime. Maximus Inc. steals monies from impoverished mothers, children and people with disabilities who sought assistance and were illegally turned away, sanctioned, and terminated.
  • Maximus Inc. spends child welfare monies lavishly on themselves, and they were illegally denying eligible families cash assistance, childcare assistance, fact-findings, exemptions from work requirements, and even food stamps. So that they can steal the monies.
  • Maximus Inc. spent $184,000.00 of welfare monies for their own promotional items, and publicity to advertise their company logo. Fraud beyond all belief.
  • Maximus Inc. blackmails States after they receive contracts from the States. Because Maximus Inc. threatens to pull out. The States do not have adequate provisions in its contract with Maximus Inc. to prevent Maximus Inc. from simply walking away from the position nor do the States have a back up plan to provide the child-care services it is obligated to offer. Maximus Inc. ability to obtain such a large increase is particularly troubling given that its initial bid claims it could operate at half the cost of the only other bidder. This is a case where initial cost estimates were dramatically low, and where the State apparently found itself dissatisfied with Maximus Inc. performance, but still vulnerable to its pricing demands.
  • Maximus Inc. can have an IRS Intercept put against a person, revocation of a passport, and drivers license. This is dead wrong, because Maximus Inc. does not have to prove a thing. In addition, they can have you in Court in a New York heart beat and they do not have to prove a thing.  They can ruin your credit in a moment.  This is very wrong.

 Maximus Inc.s misuse of welfare funds and other rapacious conduct is beyond belief. Maximus Inc. is inefficient, inept, uses improper behavior, and questionable practices. Mr. President why should we give private corporations the sovereign right to decide who receives benefits and who goes hungry? No sweet angel of Jesus should be left behind. They are victims   of the theft of monies by Maximus Inc. that was meant for them.  The privatization of welfare services has resulted in numerous examples of the erosion of services by Maximus Inc. Maximus Inc. is accountable to their shareholders, not to the United States Government, States, and the communities they are hired to serve. Their real job is to make money for the people who own them, not to provide services for the people who need them.


Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Similiar situation with DCSE

AUTHOR: Bdh123 - (U.S.A.)

POSTED: Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Hi, I am helping someone (we'll call him Bob) deal with a similar situation. DCSE reduced a wage assignment on their own initiative due to a change in "Bob's" salary. However, for some reason they did not consider the arrears Bob owed. Bob was paying (having his check garnished) 200 dollars on arrears every month. After DCSE modified the assignment, he was only paying 50 dollars on arrears every month. Because Bob trusted that DCSE was modifying his payments accurately, he did not question the change and continued paying his support at this rate for almost two years. Then, after two years, DCSE sent a letter to him stating that he owed thousands of dollars in interest on unpaid arrears.

After careful review, we have determined that the reason there is so much interest due now and why the arrears never seem to go away is because the reduction they made caused Bob's interest on arrears to accrue at an amount equal to the payments of the entire child support due every month...not only was he not paying arrears, he was actually going backward in interest.

By law if a payment amount due is equal or less than the interest accruing on the case, the Department of Economic Security is supposed to stop and reevaluate the case. This was never done, and now 6 years later, Bob has been told that he owes over 20,000.00 in interest. This is totally unnacceptable, but nobody at DCSE or the AG's office seems to care.

Bottom line is, we are desperately seeking a way to have someone besides DCSE or the Attorney Generals Office look into this case or better yet request that an audit be conducted. How would one initiate an audit? We can't even have one of the child support offices review the case by hand because the file has been moved to the Attorney General's office....the whole file....they didn't make a copy and leave the original one where it was, they took the entire file, which explains why every email we recieve in response to our questions about the case is overly generalized and not at all helpful.

In short...how do we audit DCSE and a file located in a desk cabinet at the Attorney General's Office?
Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now